[extropy-chat] belief

[Samantha Atkins]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:38:18 +1100
"Brett Paatsch" <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> If it is not possible to get smart people to voluntarily improve
> (update if you like) their internal dialog simply to do away with
> a word that is harmful and which they are propagating probably 
> unintentionally every time they use it, how on earth can we do
> any of the other stuff?  Language is the means by which we 
> communicate with each other and it is about semantics.
> 
> When folk says things are "just semantics" they are dismissing
> in a phrase all possibility of their acquiring political sophistication
> and the non-destructive power to better persuade. 
> 

In all the many exchanges on this topic you have not clearly demonstrated to most people's satisfaction that using the word "believe" but only believing rational things is in fact sufficiently harmful to necessitate eradicating the word itself.  

> If we can't communicate we cannot persuade. If we can't 
> persuade we can't influence change except by force. And that
> doesn't do more than small incremental changes usually at the
> cost of the life of the person that tries it anyway so force is
> not a satisfactory answer either.  
> 

There is such a thing as choosing one's battles carefully.  A lot of effort toward a cause that seems less important makes us look like cranks before we even get to important issues.

> I watch politics closely. The rate of technological change can
> and has been greatly reduced by the politics of fear aimed at
> uncritical thinkers (believers). It has slowed stem cells, genetic
> engineering, gmo foods, the nature of the quid pro quo in IP is in
> urgent need of review so that stupid laws don't slow things down.
>

I don't like conversations like "well, this is what I *believe*, so there is no point talking about it."   But somehow I don't think simply removing the word will stop this.  Another word will quickly take its place even if you could limit use of the word "believe". 
 
> It is not only possible that there will be no singularity it is possible
> that civilization can go backwards. It has happened before in the
> dark ages. 
>

Well, yes.  But it seems pretty strained to imply that use of the word "believe" will make any significant difference in whether it goes backward or not.



-s